Internet Revolt? Hardly!

Okay, so there's this new "book" being passed around currently by the Goodreads bullies. It's called, "Off Topic: The Story Of An Internet Revolt".  O_O Please. An internet revolt? I don't think so. More like a "Bully Revolt". This book was put together by multiple Goodreads bullies, so right there, you already know what to expect, right? Well, the book doesn't disappoint.

I read this book, or as much as I could before I realized, I've read it somewhere before. Now, consider this post something of my review.

It was fairly well written, but you know when you read a book, and the author(s) start inserting all of these intelligent sounding words, and you get to a point and say, "This author(s) is TRYING too hard to sound intelligent, yet, the topic itself is somewhat stupid?

Yeah, this is one of those books, and the bullies are rating it up too.

We get it, you have a thesaurus on hand, and or a word doc dictionary. Now, having said that, it is readable ... to a point. It's fairly clear in it's message, and one can tell that a limited amount of time was put into it, but here's the thing, that doesn't always equate to a well written book. (Or factual)

The biggest problem with this book is, it's nothing we all haven't heard before coming from the Goodreads bullies. It's the same "We're being censored" shit they have been spewing ever since Goodreads decided to change, and maybe to some extent, start enforcing their ToS. 

This book is nothing more than the bullies coming together (nothing new there) and taking from their hate blogs, hate author reviews, and their hate comments they leave behind on Goodreads, and putting it all together in one place. 

Reading this book will save valuable time from roaming the internet.

It's the same dribble they spew for free. 

You will also find some misrepresentations of the truth. (Nothing new there, either.) There is more spin city, oddball assumptions and as usual, some outright lies. To start, here is a shot of page 43, where they make the claim that Goodreads wants to remove, "without warning", any review that doesn't actually talk about the book. 

First of all, isn't that what a book review is? A review that talks about the book? So, armed with this knowledge, wouldn't it be feasible to remove a book review that doesn't talk about the book? In fact, if the book review (which is what it's actually called) doesn't talk about the book, then guess what? It's not actually a book review, is it? My big question is, why can't these bullies realize this? I would compare this to going to say, McDonald's website where they allow you to review the "Big Mac" but instead, you talk about "The Whopper". Or closer yet, you talk about the person who made your "Big Mac". You know, something like: "I hated my Big Mac because the person who made it is a jerk. He's a homophobic prick who doesn't know the difference between a sesame seed bun and special sauce." 

Or, maybe they just flat out lie and say: "The man who made my Big Mac is a pedophile and a racist."

Neither of which actually tells anyone if the Big Mac they ate was good or bad. 

And of course, if the McDonald's website deleted that Big Mac review because it didn't talk about the Big Mac, but instead, talked about the person who made it, then the bullies would cry, "Censorship!" 

It's book review, people, not an author review. It says right on the site when you click on it that it's a book review. If it were to say "author review", then you would be in business. 

Or am I missing something here?

The truth is, yes, at first they did start to delete those shelves and reviews without warning, but what these bullies refuse to mention is, they quickly halted that process and began sending warnings to them regarding their "author attacks" not being "book reviews". 

They also mention in the book how ridiculous and unprofessional it is for Goodreads to make these changes to their ToS. I guess it's no more ridiculous than writing an author review where a book review is supposed to be? O_o

Then they come clean with the truth, and mention how Goodreads is "taking away the fun from the site" by no longer allowing them to attack authors instead of addressing the book. Can we see now where these bullies stand? It's not about reviews, but more so, their self entitlement to attack people, namely authors. Attacking authors has nothing to do with book reviews, and apparently, it's not fun to them to just write book reviews, they would rather attack authors because that's more fun!

Then they talk about Chairman Mao, a vile dictator who killed millions, and like they tried to do with Hitler, they attempt to make the comparison to Goodreads being like Chairman Mao. The thing is, Goodreads isn't killing anyone, last I checked. Just saying. Not to mention, Goodreads isn't even a country, it's a website! And a free one at that where these people who cry "Censorship!", can sign up for free! 

I'm going to roll my eyes now. 

But prior to page 43, you get to read on page 32 where they (the bullies who wrote this book) wonder why Goodreads would even protect authors they "banned" from the site. I compare this to, "Why can't I violate the rules and bully this person through their book(s)? They broke the rules and were banned."

Of course, they mention me as one of those people who got banned. Wait a tick! Didn't some of the bullies get banned too? Like, Angela Horn? I'm pretty sure she did. And furthermore, none of the bullies know why I got banned because no reason was ever given. The truth is, I got banned because the bullies overwhelmed the GR staff with fake and false complaints about me and lies. They also showed alleged emails I sent to their friend Jude Henderson which had nothing to do with my activities on Goodreads. The truth is, I didn't violate any of GR ToS. (And nobody can present evidence to show I did either) But if you listen to the bullies, you would think they KNOW everything. That's what they want you to believe. The fact is, they don't know shit. 

Then they ask the question, "Who even cares about these writers in the larger literary context?" - Hhhmm, see what I mean? Just because they don't care about these writer's, they naturally assume that nobody does. Yet, they care enough to attack them, stalk them, bully them, tweet about them, and even write about them in their book.

Then they make the assumption that all authors use sock puppets, and dox. When have I ever been caught using a sock puppet? .... The answer is NEVER! And when have you ever seen me dox anyone? ... Again, the answer is NEVER! Kind of like when they say I stalk people, and harass them, yet they never seem to show any evidence of it. 

Then they go on about how realistic they are, and intelligent they are that they understand enough to know that not everyone is going to like their book, should they ever decide to do so. Check it out.

Now, didn't we see earlier where they were complaining about attacking authors in book reviews? And because of this, didn't we establish that these people are not reviewing books, but rather, reviewing authors? And at the same time, didn't we read where they claim that by Goodreads refusing them to talk about authors in book reviews that Goodreads was no longer "fun"? 

This isn't about book reviews. It's about attacking authors. They also fail to mention in their "book" that I have never complained about a legitimate "bad" book review. The truth is, before the Goodreads bullies attacked me, I never received a "bad" book review. My complaints have always been about author attacks in book reviews.

Then they continue with their moans and groans that when Goodreads deletes an author attack, they call it censorship. (And compare Goodreads and authors to Chairman Mao and Adolf Hitler) 

I'm going to shake my head this time. (And maybe roll my eyes again)

Then they "recommend" authors to stop focusing on their personal attacks against them and start "honing" their craft, and fine tuning their "strategy", and to get over themselves already. Maybe the bullies should get over themselves already. What they fail to recognize is that by them attacking authors in book reviews and spreading lies, they are hindering these authors chances of obtaining a following. (I told you, this book is full of this crap and hypocrisy left and right)

Then they talk about how they are authors and they love negative reviews of their books. First of all, no author is going nuts over negative reviews, but rather, bully attacks. Secondly, this is a lie twice over because I have seen Angela Horn and other bully authors who have had people's accounts deleted because they gave them one stars. Doesn't sound like they can "take it" to me. 

You see, this is what I said in the opening, it's the same old spin they do on a regular basis. This has nothing to do with legitimate bad reviews. But they are trying to make it the issue. 

Then on page 94, they mention me again. (I must be relevant) To make one of their points, they use me as an "example" however, they completely fabricate the "example", take a look.

Yes, you read correctly. They say: "I find it hard to believe that Mr. Bryant has ever met "a random 16 year old girl who had a wooden leg and a parrot on her shoulder" who "suggested that I help her make some easy money by counting bald people." Then they say: "To be blunt, I believe he has fabricated this piquant detail."

First of all, I would be so lucky if any of the bullies would ever say this. The truth is, nobody ever did. I think it's ironic that they fabricated this piquant detail. The truth is, and I have numerous evidence on this blog that supports this next statement, that the bullies claim I have tried to meet 16 year old girls online. And that I am a pedophile. In none of the evidence I provide on this blog has any of the bullies mentioned a wooden leg, a parrot or that I was ever counting bald people. Like I said earlier, a book full of misrepresentation and outright lies. Spin city!

But hey! My name was mentioned three times in this book so, not bad for someone who nobody cares about, right? O_O

So yes, this is what they use to "demonstrate" the stuff they say in book reviews about authors instead of the truth: Like this:

Or they review the whole book based only on the "free" chapter on Amazon,like this bully sock puppet goober. 

And they call themselves readers? Yeah, readers of the first "free" chapters. LOL

Then, in true bully "self entitlement" fashion, in their book, they actually think they should be "catered" to and that Goodreads should work with them in a "compromise" to which both parties might be "satisfied". 

I'm gonna go ahead and roll my eyes one more time here. 

This kind of reminds me of the latest talks between USA and Iran nuclear capabilities. Goodreads being USA and the Goodreads bullies being the Iranians. 

Then, to top it off, these people actually have convinced themselves that they know what our long dead founding fathers of America would say about this new Goodreads policy. They write almost 20 pages. Take a look at the beginning of it. 

I know, right? Talk about self entitlement. But this is the way these bullies actually think. They truly believe they know EVERYTHING! And they are slinging around hypocrisy and lies like they are going out of style. 

Then they revert back to this whole "We're being censored" whine, and "free speech" crap.

Hey bullies, if I invite you to my house and give you a free place to stay, it's not censorship or free speech oppression if I ask you to not be rude or bully others. Then kick you out if you are rude and bully others. It's my house! Just like Goodreads is a free website and it belongs to Amazon. They get to make the rules and pick and choose which rules they enforce and to whom they enforce it upon. You get no so say in the matter. Just like at my house.

Then they go down that road again of the extreme and bizarre. They actually compare comments that state facts about the Jerry Sandusky case as their example for the lies they say about authors, including me. I mean, when you say Jerry Sandusky is a pedophile, you actually have a conviction from a court to support that claim, but when these people call me or any other author a pedophile, you haven't any evidence to support it. This is when you take a fact about Jerry Sandusky and turn it into a libelous comment / lie when you say it about me. One is a proven fact and the other is not. See the difference? of course you don't, that's why your stupid little bullies. 

Of course it's not "gossip" when you say it about Jerry Sandusky, but it is "gossip" when you say it about me. And there lies the problem. The bullies have misled everyone with their "book". They fail to tell the truth (as expected) and they spin every little thing. Didn't I tell you it was like reading one of their blogs or comments or even, book reviews?

These people are heartless, soulless, and just pure evil. I'll prove it yet again with this final screenshot of the day. It's a book shelf from a bully, "Anushka", who says "Dear author, klindly kill yourself". 

I know, right? Well, at least she said "kindly". 

These people wish others dead. How much more evidence do we need to see before we realize that these people are the vile of the vile? Maybe they will spin this too and say: "Anushka didn't mean the author to kill themselves, but that the author should just kill their career."

You can put all the icing you want on a turd. I bet when you bite into it, it's still going to taste like shit. 

Over all, this book is filled with misdirection, misinterpretation, spin, and outright lies. I can't recommend this book for anyone. When truth matters, you just can't simply trust the Goodreads bullies. They wouldn't know the truth if it crawled up their ass and died. The truth is, I think that's exactly what happened.

I'm Carroll Bryant ... and this is The Looking Glass.

Things We Learned Today:

* The bullies collaborated on a book

* The bullies do what they do best in the book, and lie

* The bullies compare Goodreads to Chairman Mao

* Icing on a turd doesn't sound appealing at all!

* It's not censorship taking place on Goodreads, just rule enforcing

* Free speech doesn't apply for a website (only a country to its citizens)

* The bullies think they know what our founding fathers would think about their plight on GR?

* The bullies are rating their book "up" on Goodreads. (No shocker there)

* The bullies call their little uprising a "revolt" - LMAO

* Maybe nobody cares about the bullies? O_o

* Still can't get over eating shit with icing on it. Gross Carroll!

* The bullies still wish people dead